Comments on: NOAA versus NASA: US Datahttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/
by Steve McIntyreSun, 02 Aug 2015 19:00:38 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: The Talking Points Memo « Climate Audithttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-345364
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:09:08 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-345364[…] to the NOAA 48 data set that I’d previously compared to the corresponding GISS data set here (which showed a strong trend of NOAA relative to GISS). Here’s a replot of that data – […]
]]>By: Surface Stations « Climate Audithttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-345309
Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:05:33 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-345309[…] have commented from time to time on US data histories in the past – e.g. here, here here, each of which was done less hurriedly than the present analysis. […]
]]>By: realclimate and Disinformation on UHI « Climate Audithttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-226489
Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:45:45 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-226489[…] effort to adjust for UHI in the U.S. (outside the USA, its efforts are risible.) A few days ago, I showed the notable difference between the GISS (UHI-adjusted) version in the US and the NOAA unadjusted […]
]]>By: Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated « Watts Up With That?http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-218220
Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:14:42 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-218220[…] to the NOAA 48 data set that I’d previously compared to the corresponding GISS data set here (which showed a strong trend of NOAA relative to GISS). Here’s a replot of that data – there […]
]]>By: NOAA Annual and December US Data « The Excellence In Weather Networkhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-215827
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:50:18 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-215827[…] At present, we don’t know very much about the NOAA calculation. To my knowledge, they make no effort to make a UHI adjustment along the lines of NASA GISS. As I’ve mentioned before, in my opinion, the moral of the surfacestations.org project in the US is mainly that it gives a relatively objective means of deciding between these two discrepant series. As others have observed, the drift in the GISS results looks like it’s going to be relatively small compared to results from CRN1-2 stations – a result that has caused some cackling in the blogosphere. IMO, such cackling is misplaced. The surfacestations results give an objective reason to view the the NOAA result as biased. It also confirms that adjustments for UHI are required. Outside the US, the GISS meta-data on population and rural-ness is so screwed up and obsolete that their UHI “adjustment” is essentially random and its effectiveness in the ROW is very doubtful. Neither NOAA nor CRU even bother with such adjustments as they rely on various hokey “proofs” that UHI changes over the 20th century do not “matter”. See post here. […]
]]>By: Bobby Hawkhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-172855
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:44:09 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-172855This chart just proves that any normalized data can indicate what ever the author wants it to indicate. Further to claim any type trend in weather, all of the attributes which contribute to weather would have to be reviewed, not just temperature. I don’t mean to discredit a scientists work, but charts of this type are common among business and what do they prove? Basically they prove that specific scientists know how to make charts which show what they want to show. The data is used to support further funding of research, and that’s about the end of the matter.
Many questions come to mind when it comes to charts of this type, specifically what data is represented? Specifically how was the data collected? Were the instruments that collected the data calibrated? What were the criteria used to select the location of temperature collecting instrument? What time frame of the Day, Month, Year was selected from which to choose samples?
To me its just another chart that allows the presenter to direct its viewers into the direction the presenter wants to go. Without credibility behind the statistics involved, its basically cute but meaningless wallpaper.
]]>By: How warm is the Earth? How do we measure it? « Fabius Maximushttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-172854
Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:01:30 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-172854[…] “NOAA versus NASA: US Data“, Steven McIntyre, Climate Audit, 16 January 2009 — Excerpt: Readers need to keep in […]
]]>By: Jeff Idhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-172853
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:51:02 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-172853Re: Kenneth Fritsch (#52),

Thanks, I read the analysis when you put the link up and you’re right it was quite informative.

]]>By: Craig Loehlehttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-172852
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:20:50 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-172852Re: trevor (#56), UHI effect is one of several elephants in the room that everyone is politely pretending is not there, along with the hockey stick linearity assumption, the presto changeo with the magnitude of the aerosol effect, the unphysicality of several GCM processes…The room is getting pretty crowded with elephants.
]]>By: Jeff Idhttp://climateaudit.org/2009/01/16/noaa-versus-nasa-us-data/#comment-172851
Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:01:59 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852#comment-172851A little off topic, but I just finished a homogenization of satellite trends which has kept my interest for several weeks. There is a step in the satellite data due to a transition from NOAA-11 to 12. By comparison to GISS over that timeframe UAH turns out to be the superior time series. It’s the same result John Christy got using balloon data.